[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
la djorden cusku di'e
So it looks like lo'ei just fakes that overload-all-the-predicates idea someone said here? (Where we just overload predicates to take propositional functions also (e.g. mi djica lekanu mi citka)).
{lo'e} doesn't change the meaning of any predicate. If I understand
what idea you mean, that idea gave predicates different meanings
depending on the type of sumti.
This (lo'ei) may in fact be cleaner, and if you can get it in without trying to hijack lo'e I think it would probably be useful.
I have the excuse that my use of {lo'e} is precedes the publication
of CLL.
Actually here's another idea for the same problem; we could make a ka'ai or such cmavo in NU. It creates a lambda expression just like ka, but the interpretation isn't the expression itself like ka, but instead any object, if there is any, which would form a true proposition when placed in the expression. So the box foo: mi djica leka'ai ce'u tanxe is the I desire any thing which is a box. This could be a bit cleaner than your lo'ei in that we get to keep our ce'us (and cleaner than the simple overloading of djica and everything else to allow taking ka also).
Yes, that might be to {lo'ei} as {poi'i} is to {lo}. Would you say
{poi'i} is cleaner than {lo}? Maybe, but I'd still want the gadri
form.
Anyway, my intent was not namecalling (and I don't think I did). I apologize if you took it that way.
No need to. It's just that you seemed to dismiss it (in several messages, not just this last one) without knowing what it was.
But, lo'ei still falls flat on the other issue, which is that it is not compatible with the high-level description of lo'e/le'e given by the book.
I know that is an issue for you, and I accept it.
If you don't want to push for them to be equivalent to lo'e, I have no problem with them (and would probably consider using lo'ei, since currently I don't know a non-tanru way to say "I want a box").
Probably in speech we'll understand each other fine then, since
{lo'e} and {lo'ei} will be hard to tell apart. I haven't felt
a need for CLL-lo'e in my experience with the language so far,
and I couldn't do without mine. If a different solution turns
up to deal with those needs, and it catches on, I would probably
end up using it, but I have not seen any satisfactory one so far.
People just tend to ignore the issue and (mis)use le, lo or loi
in those cases.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail&xAPID=42&PS=47575&PI=7324&DI=7474&SU=
http://www.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/getmsg&HL=1216hotmailtaglines_addphotos_3mf